would you pay money for any gta v online content?

aqarwaen

kets rockstar announced that they starting releasing some paid downloadable content gta online..you would still get free content updates,however there would be also option buy optional downloadable content.would you buy it???

ChiroVette

Not as long as the online content consisted of basically new outfits and re-skinned weapons/vehicles.

But if they started offering actual content that would enhance the SP game, I would. For instance, I would pay for them to add all of the online properties into the game, which modders already did with the mod Single Player Apartments. That is cool because you have a f*ck ton of purchasable properties and every one of them comes with a 10 car garage. When I used this mod, I would divide up all the properties (there are like 30 or so of them) between the three protagonists so that they all had a lot of properties as well as a ton of garage space.

Some of the more intense vehicles might be worth it for a small DLC charge. What I would love to see is for some of the SP online stuff to make it into the straight vanilla SP game. Things like the Flight School, which is different from the SP flight school, but in the same location. All of the races you can play against not only other players, but AI opponents. I think there is room for purchasing some or a lot of this stuff in the pure non-online SP game.

I know, for instance, that I own the game on the PS3 and I went online to play it, BUT I never played in multiplayer rooms. I always played by myself because I wasn't in a clan and I didn't want to get griefed or have to worry about depositing money for every little thing I did. But the problem was that all the money, purchases, and even XP I earned while playing alone online did not transfer to my SP game, so it was completely useless to me, and I gave up on the online part the same day I started it, after a few hours.

Lioshenka

From your question it isn't clear if the said content can be using in the single-player; however, even if it does my question would be no, unless it is a completely new storyline with additional large-scale map additions, large number of new cars and new radio stations.

ChiroVette

He isn't talking about Shark Cards, which are nothing but crappy in-game currency packs, with finite purchase value. I think he is referring to a one-price DLC making online content available in SP offline.

Darealbandicoot

If all the online stuff is added to SP offline like the property's and maybe the online flight school(which was MEANT for single player according to the newswire) etc.. then I probably would buy it straight away since it's better than getting a shark card lol.

ChiroVette

If all the online stuff is added to SP offline like the property's and maybe the online flight school(which was MEANT for single player according to the newswire) etc.. then I probably would buy it straight away since it's better than getting a shark card lol.

Exactly!

I am not against DLC at all. Even the idea of microtransactions are fine, to be honest, if done properly.

Matty

If Rockstar released single-player (where most of my interest in the game lies) DLC for GTA V that added a substantial amount of content to the base game, such as new or expanded storylines similar to GTA IV’s EFLC with new gameplay features, then I’d pay money for it.

I wouldn’t fork out anything for paid Online only DLC that only really adds a few things here and there, though, due to the fact that Online doesn’t particularly interest me a great deal.

ChiroVette

The only DLC I would buy is if it was the same standard as EFLC. F*ck paying $3 here and there for weapons, vehicles etc that should've been in single player to begin with.

If it were just drips and drabs of glorified reskins of cars, flyables, outfits, and weapons, I would agree. But I wouldn't personally hold Rockstar to actually sitting down to the drawing board and creating new episodic content for a game that is making so much money on from Online microtransactions/IAP that this kind of extensive content is patently unrealistic.

But a one time fee of a couple of dollars that added in a ton of the online stuff to SP would be something I would purchase if it was a very nominal fee, and it was incredibly content-rich. But if they start releasing packs for a couple of dollars here and there for nothing but reskins, then I completely agree with you.

TrevorIsMyDad

If Rockstar released single-player (where most of my interest in the game lies) DLC for GTA V that added a substantial amount of content to the base game, such as new or expanded storylines similar to GTA IV’s EFLC with new gameplay features, then I’d pay money for it.

I wouldn’t fork out anything for paid Online only DLC that only really adds a few things here and there, though, due to the fact that Online doesn’t particularly interest me a great deal.

This. Rockstar needs to make amends, as far as I'm concerned, for being sell outs to online and leaving their real fans (story mode) to do without.

Nightwing 0613

If Rockstar released all the online content for single player, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Heists, Gunrunning, Biker Club, Lowriders, Financing, Stunt Planes, Executives, Import/Export, Cunning Stunts, etc.... Also including all guns, vehicles & clothes from all the updates. Holiday stuff included.

Also the icing on the cake would be adding a new single player DLC chapter with a female protagonist included with this major update. I would gladly pay another $60 for it. Single player is where it’s at for me.

Tycek

Absolutely no. I wouldn't pay for the useless content already present in Online, as even when it was free it couldn't keep me interested for more than couple of hours. The only thing I could pay for in case of GTA V is really big SP DLC, similar in size to EfLC.

kidtwist81

If Rockstar released single-player (where most of my interest in the game lies) DLC for GTA V that added a substantial amount of content to the base game, such as new or expanded storylines similar to GTA IV’s EFLC with new gameplay features, then I’d pay money for it.

I wouldn’t fork out anything for paid Online only DLC that only really adds a few things here and there, though, due to the fact that Online doesn’t particularly interest me a great deal.

This. Rockstar needs to make amends, as far as I'm concerned, for being sell outs to online and leaving their real fans (story mode) to do without.

With the greatest of respect this is one of the biggest issues with gamers now, people arent prepared to move with the times. They havent sold out. you arent doing without either. That content is there for you to consume also and its all free. Because you choose not to consume it thats your fault not theirs. Single player was packaged and sold to gamers 4 years ago and it was worth the price it was sold at. Just because 4 years later you are still playing it wishing you had the online content isnt their fault. They offer microtransactions to fund the online development, as a good business should.

do you go back to the cinema four years later and ask to see the same movies you missed out on in the intervening period and demand to get them all for free?

Life moved on from single player. It is time for players to accept it unfortunately.

Official General

If the DLC is a significant expansion of the single player experience, such a map extension, story, more side missions and gameplay features etc. - something similar to EFLC for IV but with more or better, then YEAH sure.

If not, then I don't really see the point, it won't do much to enhance the SP experience for me. I'm not really interested or excited about the little extras from Online being added to SP.

gunziness

Only if the content is added in a DLC like EFLC. If they are just weapons/cars and in general the DLC is like the ones they do in online, then they can be modded in easily and of course not worth a penny.

ChiroVette

If Rockstar released single-player (where most of my interest in the game lies) DLC for GTA V that added a substantial amount of content to the base game, such as new or expanded storylines similar to GTA IV’s EFLC with new gameplay features, then I’d pay money for it.

I wouldn’t fork out anything for paid Online only DLC that only really adds a few things here and there, though, due to the fact that Online doesn’t particularly interest me a great deal.

This. Rockstar needs to make amends, as far as I'm concerned, for being sell outs to online and leaving their real fans (story mode) to do without.

With the greatest of respect this is one of the biggest issues with gamers now, people arent prepared to move with the times. They havent sold out. you arent doing without either. That content is there for you to consume also and its all free. Because you choose not to consume it thats your fault not theirs. Single player was packaged and sold to gamers 4 years ago and it was worth the price it was sold at. Just because 4 years later you are still playing it wishing you had the online content isnt their fault. They offer microtransactions to fund the online development, as a good business should.

do you go back to the cinema four years later and ask to see the same movies you missed out on in the intervening period and demand to get them all for free?

Life moved on from single player. It is time for players to accept it unfortunately.

You make valid points, but they do not completely mitigate the complaint that Rockstar has abandoned SP support of a game while continuing to go with the more lucrative path of least resistance by dumping all resources into Online. I understand your metaphor about movies from years ago, but games in the modern era are a different animal entirely. The fact is that DLC for SP is a long tradition for gaming since consoles and PC's were developed that could allow the sale of extra content.

Yes, Rockstar absolutely gave us a beautiful, high quality, top-shelf, and complete game with V. No doubt. And they are under no contractual obligation to add further SP support if they don't want to. It is, after all their IP and they get to make that call.

But the point of contention here is not with the issue of law, since all we are empowered to do is "complain" about the lack of SP support and have no legal recourse. But Rockstar is alienating a huge chunk of their GTA fanbase by not taking some time and resources to offer meaningful SP support for a game that is still going strong, AND with no announcement of information for a future GTA title on the horizon, over four years later.

Yes, you are correct that people like me are choosing not to avail ourselves of the Online portion of the game, and it could be argued that we are choosing to miss out on all this content. But at the same time, not everyone wants to play online. And while we absolutely did get what we paid for, since we all received full games with no expressed obligation by Rockstar to add to it, Houser's crew did a lot of tongue-wagging about SP support before the game was released, and while not honoring that does not rise to the level of fraud or anything, it is nonetheless leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many of their customers.

Of course, there is another side to this coin (lol a 3 sided coin?) and that is the fact that while the Episodes for IV were heralded with a good deal of critical acclaim AND gushing praise by fans, Rockstar was very disappointed by what they termed lackluster sales of the Episodes. Many people believe that the only reason that the Episodes made any kind of money at all for Rockstar/Take2 is because IV was so hyped and Microsoft so desperate to entice Take 2 to make the content 360 exclusive, that they shortsightedly paid Take2 50 million dollars for the short term exclusivity rights. So with that little development stipend, Take2 was able to make money on that DLC to a limited extent.

So since no console developer stepped up to bankroll DLC content for V, in exchange for exclusivity, lol understandably so, it could be argued that Rockstar decided after V's release that future SP DLC was a financially dubious prospect at best, and now that they are really raking it in with their Online cash cow, what would be the incentive for actually commit money, manpower, and resources to SP DLC now?

Tonesta

Life moved on from single player. It is time for players to accept it unfortunately.

Or just move on, and find other things to do with their time.

For me personally, gaming is a solitary pursuit. Something fun and escapist to while away some hours from time to time. If I want to hang out with others, then I actually want to do that in person - online gaming is a very poor substitute.

So if games all move away from SP in favour of exclusive online - then I'll simply move away from games (even IP like GTA that I love)....or at least stick to playing older stuff.

I don't know if there's enough people like me that losing us would hurt companies like Rockstar's bottom line significantly. The sales figures for GTAV suggest, unfortunately, that there probably aren't.

Although RDR2, at least, would seem like it's still going to have a hefty SP component, so we know we've got at least one more hurrah to come.....

ChiroVette

Life moved on from single player. It is time for players to accept it unfortunately.

Or just move on, and find other things to do with their time.

For me personally, gaming is a solitary pursuit. Something fun and escapist to while away some hours from time to time. If I want to hang out with others, then I actually want to do that in person - online gaming is a very poor substitute.

So if games all move away from SP in favour of exclusive online - then I'll simply move away from games (even IP like GTA that I love)....or at least stick to playing older stuff.

I don't know if there's enough people like me that losing us would hurt companies like Rockstar's bottom line significantly. The sales figures for GTAV suggest, unfortunately, that there probably aren't.

Although RDR2, at least, would seem like it's still going to have a hefty SP component, so we know we've got at least one more hurrah to come.....

100% agree. I have pondered the same question myself, because I would never pay money for a GTA game that was Online exclusive or had some anemic SP experience. But I have no idea how many people who are in the target demographic for new GTA games are represented by opinions like ours.

However, that said, there is a way that Rockstar could create a completely fair and reasonable GTA that was just an Online exclusive. Just adopt the Freemium business model that mobile game developers are making a fortune from, which they kind of already have with GTAO. The key is that freemium games get the name because they are completely free to download and play, BUT you have an in-game store where you can buy IAP (In App Purchases, which are the same as what console/PC games call microtransactions).

If GTA becomes a console/PC Freemium game, then fine. I might even download it and try it out free of charge. But right now, the way I see it is that Rockstar is arguably double-dipping. They charge the full retail price on the front-end for GTA V as a game, but they still make a killing on the back end with IAP Shark Cards. I don't think devs should be able to have it both ways. Either be a freemium game and make all your money from in-app advertising and IAP or be a retail game with some IAP like DLC. But doing it both ways, even though it is completely legal, unfortunately, is ethically dubious.

Dryspace

No. I will pay for games and proper expansions, the way the video game industry worked, just fine, for the first 30 years. That may be either a single price or a monthly price for an MMO.

I will not pay for "digital goods and services", because they are always priced astronomically higher than their actual cost, whether it is a piece of digital clothing or the right to move a character from one server to another, or the privilege of skipping to level [Max]. These kinds of things used to be free and are designed for suckers.

These practices became possible due to the progression of online infrastructure, and are the result of unscrupulousness: A person doing something, not because it is right or good, but because he can.

Tonesta

It would be nice if everyone quit buy stuff from CrackStar outside of the original purchase of the game itself. Then maybe they would quit being so greedy.

Well that's the problem isn't it.

They've made hundreds of millions of dollars from microtransactions in GTA Online; it's been insanely profitable for them.

Take Two are a publicly traded company, so they're not going to turn away from that sort of profit on principle. They're only going to do so if people stop splashing their cash on in-game purchases. Not happening, sadly.

ChiroVette

It would be nice if everyone quit buy stuff from CrackStar outside of the original purchase of the game itself. Then maybe they would quit being so greedy.

Well that's the problem isn't it.

They've made hundreds of millions of dollars from microtransactions in GTA Online; it's been insanely profitable for them.

Take Two are a publicly traded company, so they're not going to turn away from that sort of profit on principle. They're only going to do so if people stop splashing their cash on in-game purchases. Not happening, sadly.

That is the problem indeed.

As a publicly traded company, they are answerable to their shareholders NOT to "their fans." They are, as you suggest, answerable to their customers, at least insofar as we are the ones who give them our money for their product. The problem is that people in the GTA community are unwilling to seek out what's in our own best interest collectively. It is sad that the only power we have is to buy their games or not buy them, and cannot entice people to stop spending money on Shark Cards until Rockstar supports the SP game.

As long as there are hundreds of millions of dollars to be made in the freemium market, for a very little investment of company time and resources, we are basically sh*t out of luck because our little protests and boycotts, statistically amount to nothing, unless we can find a way to get people to stop paying money for Shark Cards.

Dryspace

It's the same situation with media in general: Until the video game media start performing actual journalism instead of performing PR services for the industry, it is highly unlikely anything will change. When random people like us are preaching fire and brimstone on the street corner, and the media personalities that gamers love and respect are acting like nothing is wrong, which side is going to seem like angry, disgruntled nutjobs?

Detective Phelps

No way, unless the content is really extensive like the GTA IV episodes.

The online mode needs something new. The recent DLCs have basically been military vehicles (which cost $X million, and requires you to grind the executive missions in a solo lobby, which you can only do IF you had enough money to even start the business in the first place). I would get paid DLC if it involves new characters, a proper story (doubt we will ever get that with GTA:O though lol), and more interiors. Oh, and a sh*t-ton of fun, unique missions. However, R*'s tactic is to release small DLCs with vehicles, clothing and new guns. I doubt any paid DLC will be significantly different.

I would prefer a single player DLC. Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Los Santos County.

ChiroVette

No way, unless the content is really extensive like the GTA IV episodes.

The online mode needs something new. The recent DLCs have basically been military vehicles (which cost $X million, and requires you to grind the executive missions in a solo lobby, which you can only do IF you had enough money to even start the business in the first place). I would get paid DLC if it involves new characters, a proper story (doubt we will ever get that with GTA:O though lol), and more interiors. Oh, and a sh*t-ton of fun, unique missions. However, R*'s tactic is to release small DLCs with vehicles, clothing and new guns. I doubt any paid DLC will be significantly different.

I would prefer a single player DLC. Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Los Santos County.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the online portion of this game, BUT knowing the freemium business model very well, having played mobile games, as well as what I have heard about GTAO so far, I am not even a little surprised by what you say, when you mention that it costs a huge amount of GTA bucks to acquire these coveted new vehicles AND that it requires a lot of money to "start" the business in the game.

This is the big problem with the freemium business model, which was mostly used in mobile games, where you don't actually pay to download and play the game, but you are encouraged, through various in-game tactics, to buy IAP (In-App Purchases) in order to acquire assets, which often include in-game currency. In GTAO, that currency is GTA Bucks. This is all accomplished by the science of manipulating what freemium devs have aptly dubbed the in-game economy.

More to your point, and less of my ranting about the dirty tricks and corporate thuggery of the companies abusing the freemium business model (which Rockstar is, unfortunately, now one of them), you alluded to how difficult it is to "start a business" to get these new vehicles and items, right? Well, that is, in the end, how these freemium-thugs get you. They get huge numbers of people addicted to their game, and as time goes on, they tighten the reins on the player's ability to obtain these desirable assets by making them harder and harder to get.

This is done strategically in two ways, or rather, for two reasons:

1. If sales of the IAP begin to taper off, the devs and publishers collude to artificially increase interest in the older title by inflating the perceived value of newly released assets (such as the military vehicles you mentioned) in order to keep the game alive and drawing as much money for as long as possible. However, you should be aware that when this happens, it usually means the game's life expectancy is near its end, and the devs are scrambling to get you to spend, spend, spend, while you still perceive value in the e-items.

2. As time goes on, the in-game currency is not only continually priced overbearlingly high, but something else happens that makes things even more sticky: That currency is systematically and slowly devalued by a form of "inflation" similar to what you see in the economy of real nations, where the currency (money) is subject to a slow waning in its value over time, and its purchasing power decreases as the years go on. In freemium games, this inflation doesn't happen over decades, as you see in the economies of nations, but over months and a few years. But it has to happen in order to keep people buying more and more. This is how the whales are induced to keep pouring money.

If you want an interesting read, check out these articles on what mobile freemium devs have cynically nicknamed whales. It is both interesting and it shows how cravenly and opportunistic these devs are. That Rockstar has not only adopted this corrupt, freemium business model, but embraced it in their "full retail priced" game, is not a good sign at all for the future of GTA, to be honest. Because, as I have said many times, Take2 is, in essence, double-dipping, but that's another conversation.

By the way, I am not saying that all freemium devs are corrupt or abusive. Like any business model, particularly dealing with entertainment, there are ethical ways to create a great product, like a freemium game, and to monetize it in order to make money. There is nothing wrong with this. But the problem is that there is also the ability to abuse your customers by capitalizing on their social weaknesses and insecurities in order to either turn them into whales or to harpoon whales currently spending a fortune in other games by converting them to your whales. Again, that Take2 has adopted the most corrupt and cravenly version of this freemium marketing scheme could be a very bad sign for the future of GTA, as the money in harpooning the whales is so huge, it may actually outstrip the gross sales of a full retail, story oriented SP campaign like what we have all come to expect from GTA. Because it could very easily curtail any desire devs have of spending huge money and resources developing a top shelf game like GTA for the SP masses, if they begin to believe that there is more money in Freemium economics.

Which I think is a valid observation based on what we have seen thus far with all SP support for GTA pretty well abandoned.

Darealbandicoot

Kinda OT but R* have patched the point to point GTA race method of getting online only cars into single player. Gee thanks rockstar of all the things to patch you keep patching ways to get online cars into story mode. How nice of you. A paid pass to get these vehicles would make sense but NOPE. They love single player by patching each and every way to get online only cars like the casco into Story mode. Yeah right Imran, keep lieing.

Detective Phelps

No way, unless the content is really extensive like the GTA IV episodes.

The online mode needs something new. The recent DLCs have basically been military vehicles (which cost $X million, and requires you to grind the executive missions in a solo lobby, which you can only do IF you had enough money to even start the business in the first place). I would get paid DLC if it involves new characters, a proper story (doubt we will ever get that with GTA:O though lol), and more interiors. Oh, and a sh*t-ton of fun, unique missions. However, R*'s tactic is to release small DLCs with vehicles, clothing and new guns. I doubt any paid DLC will be significantly different.

I would prefer a single player DLC. Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Los Santos County.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the online portion of this game, BUT knowing the freemium business model very well, having played mobile games, as well as what I have heard about GTAO so far, I am not even a little surprised by what you say, when you mention that it costs a huge amount of GTA bucks to acquire these coveted new vehicles AND that it requires a lot of money to "start" the business in the game.

This is the big problem with the freemium business model, which was mostly used in mobile games, where you don't actually pay to download and play the game, but you are encouraged, through various in-game tactics, to buy IAP (In-App Purchases) in order to acquire assets, which often include in-game currency. In GTAO, that currency is GTA Bucks. This is all accomplished by the science of manipulating what freemium devs have aptly dubbed the in-game economy.

Spoiler

More to your point, and less of my ranting about the dirty tricks and corporate thuggery of the companies abusing the freemium business model (which Rockstar is, unfortunately, now one of them), you alluded to how difficult it is to "start a business" to get these new vehicles and items, right? Well, that is, in the end, how these freemium-thugs get you. They get huge numbers of people addicted to their game, and as time goes on, they tighten the reins on the player's ability to obtain these desirable assets by making them harder and harder to get.

This is done strategically in two ways, or rather, for two reasons:

1. If sales of the IAP begin to taper off, the devs and publishers collude to artificially increase interest in the older title by inflating the perceived value of newly released assets (such as the military vehicles you mentioned) in order to keep the game alive and drawing as much money for as long as possible. However, you should be aware that when this happens, it usually means the game's life expectancy is near its end, and the devs are scrambling to get you to spend, spend, spend, while you still perceive value in the e-items.

2. As time goes on, the in-game currency is not only continually priced overbearlingly high, but something else happens that makes things even more sticky: That currency is systematically and slowly devalued by a form of "inflation" similar to what you see in the economy of real nations, where the currency (money) is subject to a slow waning in its value over time, and its purchasing power decreases as the years go on. In freemium games, this inflation doesn't happen over decades, as you see in the economies of nations, but over months and a few years. But it has to happen in order to keep people buying more and more. This is how the whales are induced to keep pouring money.

If you want an interesting read, check out these articles on what mobile freemium devs have cynically nicknamed whales. It is both interesting and it shows how cravenly and opportunistic these devs are. That Rockstar has not only adopted this corrupt, freemium business model, but embraced it in their "full retail priced" game, is not a good sign at all for the future of GTA, to be honest. Because, as I have said many times, Take2 is, in essence, double-dipping, but that's another conversation.

By the way, I am not saying that all freemium devs are corrupt or abusive. Like any business model, particularly dealing with entertainment, there are ethical ways to create a great product, like a freemium game, and to monetize it in order to make money. There is nothing wrong with this. But the problem is that there is also the ability to abuse your customers by capitalizing on their social weaknesses and insecurities in order to either turn them into whales or to harpoon whales currently spending a fortune in other games by converting them to your whales. Again, that Take2 has adopted the most corrupt and cravenly version of this freemium marketing scheme could be a very bad sign for the future of GTA, as the money in harpooning the whales is so huge, it may actually outstrip the gross sales of a full retail, story oriented SP campaign like what we have all come to expect from GTA. Because it could very easily curtail any desire devs have of spending huge money and resources developing a top shelf game like GTA for the SP masses, if they begin to believe that there is more money in Freemium economics.

Which I think is a valid observation based on what we have seen thus far with all SP support for GTA pretty well abandoned.

It's not just more difficult to start a business, you have to be in a public lobby as well. So in other words, if you have a life outside GTA and haven't played in a while, some level 400+ in a flying bike or an APC will kill you and destroy your product. You have to change the internet settings on the console just so you can finish the missions without any problems (or just cycle through servers to find one without assholes). Then again, if the game wasn't filled with outrageous vehicles this wouldn't be a problem. Players with cashcards have a huge advantage when it comes to gunfights and they can travel without any problems. Rehashing the same missions but making them slightly different is not a good tactic, but the fanboys will be like "but FREE content!!!" "you don't have to buy the cashcards if you don't want to!".

IMO, the change of focus from SP to MP DLCs (and cashcards) became more obvious when The Benz was kicked out from R*. Back when he was there, they promised an SP DLC. But now it's clear that repetitive MP "DLC" is the direction the Housers and the higher-ups at T2 want to take (although I am pretty sure that it was The Benz' idea for the cashcards, IIRC). I have real worries about how RDR2 will pan out. RDR1 had a really fun multiplayer, but I really doubt that the sequel will be anything like it.

SP DLC would redeem R* somewhat in the eyes of many players, but SP DLC would only make R* a limited amount of money compared to repeated Online DLCs. "Cash is king" indeed. A high quality SP DLC would use up a fair share of their time if the whole team was involved, and since a fairly large portion of the staff are working solely on GTA:O, I doubt we will get an SP DLC anytime soon, if at all.